From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A839C45656; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:32:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22E540EA5; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:32:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oa1-f42.google.com (mail-oa1-f42.google.com [209.85.160.42]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AEA40E5A for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:32:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oa1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-25d634c5907so979489fac.2 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1721403158; x=1722007958; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Oc47wQT9qQZcMsBAA3eP+jLKOn6UjkiCWTAvar77Ll8=; b=dl/kbe/Zvi9tqHriHpNJQBFkaFLjEhu6JESTDrC7NYATNt3nIDEB1sSLhw0LfCX+Md 0TSpa3H4DpbhkT1i1ZU2rKk4C0dMlY5YMz4FrxRIF6dweSl4QSJ6YwMOQlybWrZzfVGC z6nSmCaNxTGt8+NDI8/L89tSRppMTqlSxvQfY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721403158; x=1722007958; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Oc47wQT9qQZcMsBAA3eP+jLKOn6UjkiCWTAvar77Ll8=; b=EFvD9iwEnjCkbhlnPYdYnf1aeID0L57cLPaUN2v4Ssm8aFnvci5XV9aN6XEIHgElYr cBCLCJu6fHzoTaNX8UfNbXIXkf6oANwRERMJqPKFklO9PrD1AvFLGvXVVYnGFijP3AcH 5QdVkTiAwpy86Pr34PVsk+UGZ01dnIOiNk6uHED56iye885aw6s6sAJmlV7oRLQbeK7T +H2TeB7n7Ni3w5Fct0Qx6+AwVO+Q2iErYv2XH5jNELoYT6eZd0PhBQ+5Ee5zqMDllK6w kzXh8OnCoFtnD1QA5sTlb+7uQt/T4W2gkQtgT7wKcTs3UloDPFwtM0N4rWVEIsggjLoX moUQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWBvsEAAggs/9yPZ2X/JapxoGZNmWYZ6ThXFAb+y+6LvXl9WWNRweEZoy51VhP/39TESI4ltuZ0KNeU7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxuUEJuhnK9RCvy97D9v5P4Yq4bCgWJNXB/cPt8AUplZpoGAKW5 vYe5Y3+J42LL8iUHJw1Pj2QonaJun9pu/MVis3wExbyHgzZHW1d2f7LmjC23yntHNWiLrEO0v4O pPMiszJLTGjwUFO6szuyJ62ltV2yecbW+p5sPBg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEDdRCAIJz9qEPBE3a6+EwRpBuAG+RvmVvOeNpf2byYDc3osQyBkiIotRP2iflZ95Gu1MANhAbGB6L3h8qT0/U= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:d6a8:b0:261:119f:7560 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-26111a150a2mr1437871fac.31.1721403157969; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 08:32:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4881077.GXAFRqVoOG@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Robb Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 11:32:27 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Adding Series Dependency to Patchwork To: Adam Hassick Cc: Aaron Conole , Thomas Monjalon , ci@dpdk.org, David Marchand Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org My view is that if the patchwork project is trying to get away from integer based series dependencies and use a more authoritative key like the message ID when associating series, we should follow suit in terms of DPDK submission guidelines. So I think the "Depends-on: <20240712120000-1-user@example.com>" format sounds fine. But, obviously this will require a policy change and update to the DPDK submission guidelines, so I'm curious what others outside of UNH think. I will add it to the discussion list for next Thursday's CI meeting. Thanks Adam. On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 4:14=E2=80=AFPM Adam Hassick = wrote: > > Hi All, > > We've gotten a review of our initial submission to add the dependency > parsing to the Patchwork dashboard. Stephen recommends that we change > our format to use the message ID of patches or cover letters rather > than the ID of the patch or series in the database. So, instead of > adding a dependency by adding "Depends-on: series-5678" one would add > "Depends-on: <20240712120000-1-user@example.com>". We can keep the > option of using the patchwork web URLs that was discussed in the > original issue on GitHub. > > The main reasoning for this is that our format doesn't make it clear > exactly what the dependency is or where it's found outside of the > context of Patchwork. This discussion can be viewed here: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/patchwork/patch/20240617221900.156155= -3-ahassick@iol.unh.edu/ > > Does this change sound reasonable? > > Regards, > Adam